Hi Everybody,
as to the blinding I have the following suggestion:
a) the fit should give not only the BR ratio, but also
the number of events, Nu and Nsl
b) if we want to be sure that we do not measure the quality of the result
on the basis of the BR ratio, can we introduce a hidden efficiency
factors.
This was way can test the stability of the result with changing cuts
and efficiency, without revealing the true value.
Of course, if you want to make an effort you can figure out the hidden variable,
it wouldn't be too hard!
Ciao
Vera
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Vera G. Luth phone: 650 926 2702
SLAC-MS 95 fax: 650 926 2657
Stanford, CA 94309
USA e-mail: [log in to unmask]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Langenegger, Urs
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 02:14 PM
To: vub-recoil
Subject: Summary of today's meeting
Hoi,
the following is my summary of the decisions (to be) taken, please
post corrections as followups.
Tracks/Photons
--------------
We focus on GTVL/AS, taking care not to eliminate Ks daughters. CT/AS
is the obvious fallback solution.
Smearing
--------
30% increase in resolution for SP3 tracks. No smearing for SP4 tracks
yet. This is based on exclusive reconstruction, may (or not) be
appropriate for inclusive Mx.
For neutrals: SP3: 2.5% killing and 1.5% smearing. On SP4: 2%
smearing and a shift of -0.0075, no killing. That should give at
least a first order approximation to the real resolutions.
Will solve the technical problem of (not) applying smearing today.
Data set
--------
Status quo, i.e. R8 for Run 1.
MC sample
---------
Combine SP4 and SP3 for Run1. Plots to be posted on the agreement
between the SP4RUN1 and SP4RUN2.
Mx cut
------
We all agree that we need to show the result when varying the mxhad
cut. We discussed on whether or not we take a decision before
unblinding on how we choose this: (1) significance of the result, (2)
overall goodness of fit. While avoiding a bias, we also need to avoid
any model-dependence answer present in the MC. In the end we agreed
that the discussion is not yet over, but that we don't disagree too
strongly ...
Ks mass
-------
Status quo
K+ momentum
-----------
Apply the momentum correction, show the change, apply no lower cut on
the momentum.
Next Meeting
------------
Sometime Monday. Conflicts between Rome and PAC/AWG meeting. Need to
discuss the BAD then. The review committee would like to see the BAD
before our next review meeting, and would like to have it for a
minimum of two days to digest it.
Cheers,
--U.
> From: Franz Muheim <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Urs Langenegger <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: Franz Muheim <[log in to unmask]>,
> Daniele delRe <[log in to unmask]>,
> Review of Vub Breco -- Franz Muheim <[log in to unmask]>,
> Marie-Helene Schune <[log in to unmask]>,
> Stephane Willocq <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Review starting up again
> Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 19:13:53 +0100 (BST)
>
> Hoi Urs,
>
> The review committee is in favour of getting ythe new BAD abefore the
> meeting. But we need a minimum fo two days, so that we can devote enough
> time for reading it.
>
>
> We are alos concerned that the final BAD will be available before the
> last possible date 21. June. This allows for no slippage at all.
>
> We really would prefer to obtain the new BAD next Monday with the aim
> of having a final document one week later, provided there are no problems.
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Franz
